Standing Committee G

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I have a copy of the list of Committee members here. Can you confirm whether it is up to date? I have heard a rumour that one of the 16 members has been taken off it, or has asked to be. Do you have any knowledge of that?

Peter Pike: The Chair is not aware of any change in the membership of the Committee.

David Wilshire: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. I am grateful for your reply, but you will have noticed, if you have looked at Hansard for our proceedings thus far, that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) has not actually been here. I suppose that that is reasonable in one way, as we have reached discussion of Wales only this afternoon. I exempt the Under-Secretary of State for Wales from attending when he has other ministerial duties to perform, but we Back Benchers ought to be here and I had assumed that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy would appear this afternoon. However, I am told that you may have had a message saying that he is not going to bother to come, Mr. Pike. Perhaps you can confirm that.
 Not only is the hon. Gentleman not bothering to come, but no one else from Plaid Cymru can be bothered to come either. They are far too busy worrying about party politics and electioneering. Is it or is it not an abuse of the House for someone to be given a place on a Committee but not to bother to use it?

Peter Pike: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point. He knows that it is not a matter for the Chair. Only one Member from Plaid Cymru is on the Committee. He is not here and I recognise that the business for this afternoon concerns Wales, but that is not a matter for the Chair.

David Wilshire: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. I can accept that, but is there any mechanism whereby the Government or the official Opposition can make use of a Committee place in such a debate if someone else cannot be bothered to take it? I would rather see the Labour party have that place than see it stay empty. We are prepared to have the debate and produce people who care about Wales, even if Plaid Cymru is not.

Peter Pike: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that appointments to the Committee are not a matter for the Chair. They are made on a basis agreed by the House. The Committee of Selection made that appointment and I have no power to change the distribution of places. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has made his point and that people can use it, but it is not for me to comment on.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. I spoke in person to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, who informed me that the Government had not consulted him about putting him on the Committee. When he found he was on it, he asked to be relieved of his duties, but he is still on it. In the rather unusual circumstances in which someone is clearly unable to serve on a Committee, is there any mechanism for the Opposition to substitute someone else?

Peter Pike: I cannot comment on that. I am not a member of the usual channels or the Committee of Selection.

Tony McNulty: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. Purely for the sake of clarity and accuracy, I should point out that the Government do not appoint minority party Members to Committees except at the behest of their Whip. That Whip is the Member from the Scottish National party, that fellow who used to sing for Runrig—I cannot remember his constituency. The name of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy was duly put forward through Government channels to the Committee of Selection by that Whip, not by the Government.

Peter Pike: That really must be the last point of order. I am mindful that we have much business on which to make progress, so I cannot allow any more time on that matter.Clause 54 Wales Spatial Plan

Clause 54 - Wales Spatial Plan

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 406, in
clause 54, page 39, line 16, at end insert— 
 '(1A) The Wales Spatial Plan must set out the Secretary of State's policies (however expressed) in relation to the development and use of land within the region'.
 We now come to part 6 of the Bill. First, may I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Wales? As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) quite rightly said, we fully understand that he has not been able to be present for the full duration of our consideration of the Bill. It would be unreasonable to expect that, but we welcome him here to look after the interests of the Welsh. We shall have an interesting debate this afternoon because, in many ways, we like the system proposed for Wales better than that proposed for England. It is simpler and it delivers more closely to the ground, with greater clarity. 
 However, we have tabled several amendments and new clauses to probe the Government's thinking on the inconsistency between the systems that they are introducing for England and Wales. After all, if one studies the population of this country—the Government's document ''Your Region, Your Choice'' has been very informative in giving me population figures—one finds that London contains 7.3 million people. The south-east contains 8.077 million people, 13 per cent. of the United Kingdom's population. The south-west contains 4.9 million, the 
 east midlands 4.1 million, the west midlands 5.3 million, the east of England 5.4 million, the north-west 6.8 million and Yorkshire 5.04 million. The only area where the figure is at all comparable to Wales is the north-east, which has 2.581 million people. The latest figure for Wales, unless the Minister can produce a more up-to-date one, shows a population of 2.946 million. That was the accurate figure for 2000. 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Sydney Chapman: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. You will know that Madame Guillotine's lethal instrument descends on the Committee at 5 o'clock. That effectively means that the 20 clauses, 16 new clauses and schedules relating to part 6 must be considered in the unseemly time of two and a half hours, which has now been shortened and, for all I know, may be disrupted further with other votes on the Floor of the House.
 Are we bound by the 5 o'clock guillotine? Do you have the discretion to lengthen the sitting slightly, Mr. Pike? If not, for future Bills would you discuss with the appropriate channels the suggestion that instead of the guillotine falling at the end of a particular sitting, which may be curtailed, it should fall at the beginning of the following sitting? I genuinely believe that that would be an improvement to the procedures.

Peter Pike: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that his point is a difficult one for the Chair. I am bound by the decision that was taken on the Floor of the House and in the programme motion that was agreed by the Committee. I have no powers of flexibility.
 In the past, there were two different methods for moving guillotine motions in the House: one gave a finishing time and the other gave a number of hours from the start of the debate. I am bound by the 5 o'clock guillotine and have no power to waive that. I suggest that when views are sought on programming, as they will be at some time during the next 12 months, hon. Members may wish to convey their view. I have no doubt that the issue will be raised when the Chairmen's Panel meets, but I cannot comment for or against the hon. Gentleman's proposition.

Don Touhig: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. The Government wish to make it clear that the usual channels are always open for discussion. I believe that discussions have already taken place between Government and Opposition Whips, so the opportunity exists for further discussions.

Peter Pike: On that point, I clearly stated my position when I first took the Chair that if there was an indication to me that there could be some change, I would be prepared to allow it. Again, I stress that I can take a motion to adjourn for a meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee only if the usual
 channels indicate to me that there is a proposition that would find favour with the Committee.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. We are all feeling our way under the procedures, which apply whether or not we like them. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) made a good point on procedure, because the guillotines seem to follow the same pattern. His proposal would allow much more flexibility to be built into the timetables, particularly as the decision on when to adjourn the Committee belongs to the Government, anyway.
 I understand your ruling on this occasion, Mr. Pike. I am simply raising a further point of order to ask you to convey the points that have been made to Mr. Speaker and to the Procedure Committee. The usual channels will have heard what has been said. I hope that we can build in a little more flexibility in the future.

Peter Pike: Mr. Speaker, too, must work within the decisions made by the House. The points have been made and I shall ensure that they are understood in the appropriate places. I cannot predict the outcome, but I suggest that the Committee wastes no more time because time is tight. Perhaps you would now resume, Mr. Clifton-Brown.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Indeed, Mr. Pike. Thank you for your helpful rulings.
 Before we broke for the Division in the House, I was speaking to amendment No. 406. The purpose of the amendment is to tease out from the Minister the Government's reason for having different systems in Wales and England. In essence, the system in Wales is far simpler than that in England in that the Welsh Assembly seems to have complete control over what goes into the spatial plan for Wales and then ensures that it is considered by local authorities when they draw up their local development plan. There are no subdivisions of the local development plan, such as local development schemes, documents or frameworks, as there are in England. It is a much simpler and clearer scheme.

Huw Edwards: Hear, hear.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: ''Hear, hear'' says a Labour Back Bencher. I shall happily give way if the hon. Gentleman wishes to make that point on the record.

Peter Pike: Order. Perhaps we could have fewer sedentary interventions.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) makes a good point.
 I was adducing an argument by giving the population statistics for different regions of the United Kingdom. I shall not go through them all again, but will recap for the benefit of the Committee. The largest region in England is the south-east with 8.077 million people, some 13 per cent. of the United Kingdom population, compared with Wales with a population of 2.946 million. Those are the latest available figures, which are up-to-date for 2000. The Minister may argue that it is precisely because Wales has a lower population than most regions of England, 
 although not all—the north-east has a population of 2.58 million—

Don Touhig: Will the hon. Gentleman correct himself? Wales is not a region of England. It is a country within the United Kingdom.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Yes, I happily accept that intervention. It is easy for us English to slip into the vernacular of considering Wales as a region, but I fully take the point and I certainly did not mean to cause offence to anyone in Wales with my sloppy vernacular on that point.
 All our amendment seeks to achieve is consistency with the eight regions in England as set out in clause 1(2). That could not be clearer. In the first part of the Bill, clause 1(1) defines the regional spatial strategy as having the acronym RSS, as the Committee knows. Subsection (2) states: 
''The RSS must set out the Secretary of State's policies (however expressed) in relation to the development and use of land within the region.''
 That is exactly the wording in our amendment. There are no new words, so it is entirely consistent. It would be interesting to know why the Government propose a different system for Wales. 
 If we are going to pass this legislation, we should consider carefully the merits of the two different systems. We have for decades and even longer in some cases—some form of planning system has been handed down for centuries since the first Parliament in this place in the 14th century—had some form of planning system in this country and I am not entirely sure why are we now tearing it up and introducing a hugely complicated system for England and a far less complicated one for Wales. The Government have not only given devolution a true meaning in Wales by devolving everything to the Welsh Assembly with very few, if any, powers for the Secretary of State, but they are also making it much simpler and therefore, presumably, much quicker for local authorities to draw up their own plans. I am sure that the people of Wales will feel that the system that the Government have given them is greatly superior to what the Government have given the eight regions in England. 
 It is unfair that the Government refused to accept our amendments to the English system to make it simpler. Indeed they took a heavy guillotine to the Bill so that large portions of it—particularly part 2, which we would have liked to amend to make it similar to the Welsh system—could not be debated. We should fully debate the merits of the Welsh system, and there are many new clauses that will allow us to do that. Amendment No. 406 is a useful probing amendment. It delves into what the Minister has to say about how well his system will work. We will examine why he does not reserve some default powers. Totally devolving the system to the Welsh Assembly, without any default powers, could lead to subsequent problems. We will explore that issue in the next group of amendments.

David Wilshire: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why it is important to have a good debate on these issues is that the proposals are good for Wales, and an excellent
 way of planning? If that is his message, he may well be able to persuade the Government that they should do the same thing for England.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has made a good point. If we have a good debate on part 6, and demonstrate that the Welsh system is infinitely superior to the English system, there will be a strong case for asking the Government to amend the Bill before Report to make the English and Welsh systems similar.

David Wilshire: I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees with me. Does he agree with the other points? If the Minister fails to persuade his colleagues that the Welsh system is much better than the English system, the proposals should be withdrawn. Wales should then have the English system that, we have been told, is so brilliant.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am sure that the Minister, with his customary lucidity, will make an outstanding case for the clauses in the Bill that relate to Wales. I have no expectation, unlike my hon. Friend, that he can do other than make his extraordinary cogent case for Wales.
 The Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is not in his place. I make no political point about that. He has an extraordinarily busy programme. However, I hope that when both English and Welsh Ministers carefully study Hansard, they will recognise the merits of our argument. I look forward, with great interest, to hearing what the Minister has to say. It will, no doubt, form the basis for a good debate on the new clauses that will follow.

Sydney Chapman: I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the Under-Secretary of State for Wales to our proceedings. I suspect that his attendance will be confined to this sitting only. I put on record how much I appreciate the way in which his ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, has conducted himself in the first nine sittings. Single-handedly—from a ministerial point of view and not unaided by his civil servants—he has dealt with a measure which, being slightly more partisan, has severe flaws and sins of omission, as well as commission.
 I look forward to the contributions from two of the three members of the Committee who represent seats in the Principality, the hon. Member for Monmouth, and the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis). We seem to have lost the hon. Member for Merioneth—I could not possibly give the Welsh translation of his constituency. 
 I shall preface my comments by saying that my hon. Friend read out the populations of various regions of England and compared them with the population of the Principality. It is worth considering that the Greater London area contains as many people as live in Scotland and Wales. Scotland and Wales—both great countries—are blessed with First Ministers. We have to survive with a Mayor, who incidentally is hoping to increase the preset rate for my constituents by 98 per cent.

Peter Pike: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's references to London will be only passing references, and that he will speak to the amendment.

Sydney Chapman: I am ever grateful for your observations, Mr. Pike. Not only will those comments be passing, they have passed.
 I shall make two points briefly. First, on reflection I accept that we should use not the word ''region'' but the word ''country'' for the reasons that the Minister set out. That is an oversight on our part. Technically Wales is a region, but it is certainly not a region of England. I acknowledge that immediately. 
 Secondly, the Minister might say that Conservatives have to get up to speed on these matters. The Government have delegated powers to the National Assembly for Wales, which has a First Minister. Therefore, it is not the Secretary of State's responsibility but that of the First Minister. If we had referred to the First Minister, however, we would probably have been ruled out of order because Parliament has no powers over the First Minister, as I am sure that the hon. Members for Monmouth and for Aberavon would have reminded us. We have specifically referred to the Secretary of State because we are living in sensitive times in which we have taken great leaps of faith and set up a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. 
 I know that the Government are concerned that the transference of powers and duties should be as smooth as possible. I am not commenting about whether they are working well in both countries at the moment. However, it is vital that the co-ordination and liaison between the Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh First Minister should be seen to be working. That is one of the principal reasons why I have added my name to the amendment. It is essential that the people of Wales see the exact relationship between the Secretary of State, the First Minister and the Welsh Assembly in town and country planning matters.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: In framing the amendment, I deliberately used the term Secretary of State—for Wales—because the Bill should ensure some consistency from the elected United Kingdom Parliament in all parts and principalities of the UK. Without some reserved powers for the Secretary of State for Wales, there will be no mechanism for doing that.

Sydney Chapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has echoed my sentiments but put them much more elegantly and eloquently. I hope that when the Minister replies, he will understand that we have a sensitive and constructive reason for saying that the Secretary of State should set out his policies, as well as the First Minister and perhaps the Minister for the Environment in the Welsh Cabinet setting out theirs.

Paul Beresford: I have always had a great affinity for Wales, which one might expect with my background. [Interruption.] I hear a facetious comment on my left, which I will ignore. I mean in my youthful background a long time ago: green country, plenty of sheep, lots of rugby and a good sense of humour.

Peter Pike: Order. We do not want to discuss New Zealand either.

Paul Beresford: I was discussing Wales, Mr. Pike. Wales is green. It has a lot of sheep. The Welsh play quite good rugby, especially if they have an All Black trainer. They also have a lovely sense of humour, which I discovered at a recent All Blacks versus Wales rugby match. In dire circumstances, the sense of humour came through from the Welsh crowd as the All Blacks' score rapidly climbed. Perhaps the Bill is relevant to that. There is much in the Bill that is diminutive to common sense.
 The Select Committee that discussed the English part of the Bill considered this matter. By sheer chance, the Minister with responsibilities for planning in the Welsh Assembly who, if my eyesight and memory serve me correctly, is listening to us today, came to address the Select Committee. Although I am from an opposite political position, I found myself thinking, ''This lady is talking common sense.'' The Select Committee appreciated her tactics, which are reflected in the Bill and the clause, and which we are testing with the amendment. I am sorry that she left after she gave evidence because she was followed by Lord Falconer, who was dramatic in a way that one would expect from someone on the stage. Everything was going to be changed. One of the things that Lord Falconer was going to change is reflected in the amendment, on which I am reluctantly and cautiously supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). 
 I recognise that we do not have a regional assembly, but we have a Welsh Assembly that is regional to Wales. In many ways, it is the same style of assembly as Ministers would like to land on the rest of England—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I will correct that. I meant to say, ''on England.'' I hope that many of us will resist that. The Welsh have managed to get themselves in a position where they do not have to have the Secretary of State in the background looming over their shoulder. I would not wish anyone to have our Secretary of State looming over his shoulder. It is of great credit to the Secretary of State for Wales that he and his Ministers have resisted the temptation to go down that road because the simplicity would be lost, the direct control would be greatly increased and it would be an enormous disadvantage for Wales.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Has my hon. Friend noticed the paradox that the Government are prepared to trust the Welsh Assembly to a far greater extent than they are prepared to trust the English regions? That is a pretty poor start to a campaign to try to establish elected English regions.

Paul Beresford: I thank my hon. Friend with a smile. I am sure that that is an issue that we can mention later. I am sure also that quality is duplicated on both sides. If I were a developer on the Welsh-English border, I would look across the border into Wales for possibilities because the planning system would be simpler. I would not have the direct controls and I would not face the prospect of everything being pulled in by the Welsh Assembly and the Secretary of State.
 I support my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold with considerable caution. He is testing the thinking of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales and the Wales Office on the prospect of having the English system landed on them. I hope that, at the end of the day, he will withdraw the amendment for the sake of the Welsh. I also hope that the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, who has been speaking on behalf of England and who should be sitting in his place riding shotgun for the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, has an opportunity to reflect on the matter as well.

David Wilshire: I begin by welcoming the Under-Secretary of State for Wales. He has missed some fascinating debates. I am sure that he would have enjoyed them, and no doubt he will have read the report of the proceedings of the Committee with great care into the early hours of the morning. Our paths have not crossed much over the years that we have both been in the House of Commons. I hope that he has the eloquence of his predecessor as Member of Parliament for Islwyn because he will need it if he is going to persuade his colleagues to do a U-turn from what they have been saying until now to what he wants them to say. I wish him well, and it is a pleasure to be in the same Committee as him.
 I have a dilemma—as a Bristolian, I should describe it as a ''dilemmol''—because for a long time I have consistently argued against the Government's jackboot approach to planning in England. At every turn, the Bill would impose things by diktat from the Secretary of State. Whenever we have moved an amendment to stop that approach, we have been told that the approach is necessary. The jackboot has been trampling over English planning for days. 
 I suspect—if this is wrong, the Minister can leap up and say that he is happy immediately to accept the amendment—that the amendment will be opposed. He is not standing up, so my guess is probably correct. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, who speaks for the official Opposition, invites me to vote for the jackboot, which would introduce a procedure whereby the Secretary of State for Wales would deliver diktat. I occasionally have fits of compassion for the Government—they cannot help being as bad as they are—and think that I should try to help them. On this occasion, I urge the Minister carefully to think about the amendment, which has been drafted in a spirit of helpfulness and co-operation. 
 If the Government are nothing else, they should be consistent. We have spent weeks and weeks saying how important it is for the Secretary of State to do this, that and the other. If the Minister is to say that the Secretary of State for Wales should have nothing to do with planning, that would be inconsistent. He will not be inconsistent, however, because he believes that he is right. We have become used to various Ministers from various Departments saying entirely different things, but it is curious when that contradiction is in the same Committee. 
 I hope that the amendment will help the Minister, for whom I have regard, to persuade his colleagues to 
 do a U-turn and rethink the Bill on Report in order to scrap the rubbish that they support as far as England is concerned.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend recall that virtually the only amendment that we have persuaded the Government to accept—they half accepted it—made clause 13 consistent with clause 12? Does that not sit oddly with their desire to make the Bill more consistent? Part 6 is very different from parts 1 and 2.

David Wilshire: My hon. Friend is right. It is remarkable that we have persuaded the Government to do anything. The Minister will not be aware that we were unable to persuade his colleagues to accept an amendment on a spelling mistake, which they felt it reasonable to leave in the Bill. If they will not accept changes on spelling mistakes, why should they accept our sound common sense?
 When the Minister speaks against the amendment, he must answer this question: if he is against the Secretary of State having a role, what is the purpose of having a Secretary of State? What is the point of taking away from a central Government Minister, who is answerable through the Cabinet to the House of Commons, any responsibility for these matters? The Bill deals with town and country planning matters and future plans for England and Wales, but it is entirely inconsistent.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has hit on an interesting point. If the Minister does not accept our amendment, he is effectively saying to the Committee that he is doing himself out of a job. Fewer Secretaries of State and other Ministers would be involved in the Government, which might be a useful precedent.

David Wilshire: My hon. Friend tempts me. I am mindful, Mr. Pike, of what you might say if I went down the road of it being a good idea to have fewer Labour Ministers and cutting their pay because they have got less to do. However, I shall not test your patience by broadening the debate. Suffice it to say that my hon. Friend is on to a good thing. I am sure that we will find an occasion when the Chairman of the day will not rule it out of order if we make the point that the Government should really sort themselves out.
 The Under-Secretary must address the issue on the basis of a Welsh Office or a Wales Office—call it what he likes. That Office has a Secretary of State, an oversight role and a responsibility to the Cabinet. Why does it not have responsibility in this context, when it is considered perfectly proper for another principality—another part of the United Kingdom—to have such responsibility? 
 That brings me to my next point. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold apologised in a way for referring to Wales as a region, and I understand why. I do not like to upset anybody and I certainly do not want to upset the Welsh but I, for my part, do not want to apologise for that. I mean no offence to the Welsh. I understand their pride in their past and their view that they are a Principality or country, and I respect that. However, in our debates so far we have been discussing regional issues, regional spatial strategies. We have not been talking about national identity. I have suggested that, but no Government 
 Member has listened. I have said that a sense of regional identity is about how one feels, not artificial regional divisions. However, the Government have insisted until now that we have been talking about regions of the United Kingdom. 
 The debate has not been about England per se because Greater London keeps being left out of the proceedings. We have been discussing artificial regions of part of England. For the purposes of this debate, we must look at the issues for Wales—why we should exclude the Secretary of State there, if that is what the Government want—in the context of the concept of regions for which the Government have argued. 
 I understood your sensitivities, Mr. Pike, when my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet wanted to talk about the size of London boroughs. I found that issue fascinating, but I accept that this is not the occasion for that. However, we must bear in mind that the area of the Principality contains far fewer people than some of the artificial English regions. The south-east is a classic example. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander when it comes to a comprehensive discussion of a Bill on town and country planning. The Under-Secretary must get a grip on that and persuade me of why I am wrong, if I am to accept any of his arguments. 
 I think that we shall be told that there should be no role for the Secretary of State for Wales in planning considerations for a geographical area with about 2.5 million people. If that is what the Government want, they have every right to use their majority to bring it about. They can say that their principle for planning is that those 2.5 million people in a distinct geographical area, with a sense of identity, should be allowed to have their own spatial strategies and comprehensive planning approach. 
 That might be the Under-Secretary's argument, but the artificial region of the south-east of England, which contains many times more people than Wales, might one day, unfortunately—if I fail to stop it—have an elected regional assembly that will compare to the National Assembly for Wales in many ways, except that it will not be called ''National''. Why does the Under-Secretary want us to support the ability of an assembly elected by 2.5 million people to set its own strategies in this area when the artificial region in which the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) and I will be, with many more people who may elect an assembly in the end, will not be able to do that? Why should one democratically elected assembly be exempt from the jackboot of a Secretary of State when the assembly that will represent my hon. Friend and I will not be? 
 That seems inconsistent. I have tried to work out what is so different about Wales that it should be exempt from the Secretary of State's jackboot. That puzzles me. Can the Under-Secretary tell me why it should be exempt? Why are the exemptions so specifically targeted at Wales, rather than applying to England? The amendment is important because it flies in the face of the Government's regional policy. I stress again that by referring to Wales as a region in this 
 context, I am being technical and specific in planning terms, not seeking to undermine the sense of pride and national identity that the Welsh have. 
 If the Secretary of State is not to have a role in Wales and if the National Assembly for Wales is to make its own decisions, another concern is what will happen with conflicts on the boundary between Wales and England. As I understand it, there will be a need to consult across the boundaries of neighbouring regions. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that. If there is a difficulty or dispute, the jackboot of the English Secretary of State will determine what happens on one side but the democratically elected assembly of the Welsh people will decide what happens on the other.

Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend is slowly producing a good reason for supporting the amendment. When I was a Minister with responsibilities for planning, I had to go to a Council of Ministers debate on spatial planning. The directorate in Brussels proposed that spatial planning should be within the directorate's control. That was with reference to such things as roads, bridges and tunnels, and was obviously more important to countries of mainland Europe than to us. The summary came to a halt when—

Peter Pike: Order. This is a rather long intervention.

Paul Beresford: I shall hasten, Mr. Pike.
 What I am really getting at is that the decision was finally made that the matter should remain with Ministers. The interesting situation might arise here that a road, tunnel or pipeline that requires planning crosses the border. In that case, should our Deputy Prime Minister talk to the Secretary of State for Wales who should then talk to the Minister in the Welsh Assembly although he has no direct control over the matter? Or should the Deputy Prime Minister simply bypass the Welsh Minister and go to the Minister responsible for planning?

Peter Pike: Order. I have been extremely lenient. That was an extremely long intervention. The amendments for discussion under clause 56 cover some of the points that the hon. Gentleman is making? I do not wish to have a long debate on these points about the Secretary of State's duties now and again at a later stage. I advise the hon. Gentleman not to advance all his arguments now if he wants to debate these matters under clause 56.

David Wilshire: You are exceedingly helpful, Mr. Pike, and I like your perceptive judgment that we might reach clause 56. I had judged that, by some of the progress that we have made so far, we might not get there. I shall take your guidance. You have helped me greatly in gathering my thoughts on clause 56, so I shall not exhaust all the arguments now.
 In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, I am impressed that I am even beginning to move towards persuading him to agree. I have spent most of the time since he became a Member worshipping at the feet of his expertise in local government, and I have learned a great deal from 
 him. Perhaps I have now persuaded him of at least part of an argument.

Paul Beresford: The cheque is in the post.

David Wilshire: I thank my hon. Friend.
 There seems to be a problem with border issues and border disputes. I hasten to add that it is only disputes over planning. We must have some clarity. If the Secretary of State is responsible for determining disagreements on the east side of a plan, it would make much sense for the same thing to happen on its west side. The Under-Secretary needs to tell us whether such disputes will be settled by the assembly. If that is the case, why will the English regions not have such responsibility? If he thinks that the Secretary of State will have to settle such disputes for England, perhaps the Secretary of State for Wales should have a role.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I do not wish to tempt my hon. Friend too far down this road, especially given your ruling, Mr. Pike. However, in discussing the powers of the Secretary of State, it is important to consider cross-border problems. The environment, minerals, transport needs and flood strategies do not respect artificial, man-made boundaries. How will they be dealt with on a holistic basis?

David Wilshire: I accept that entirely. In a way, it is the point that I have been trying to make. The border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is the most obvious example that I can give to show why my hon. Friend is absolutely right about cross-border issues. I do not wish to tempt you into stopping me, Mr. Pike, so I shall be very brief.
 I spent much of my first 10 years as an MP involved with Northern Ireland matters. Cross-border issues are difficult to resolve. The focus tends to be on the obvious problems of Northern Ireland but, in matters involving a land boundary, one rapidly discovers that land planning issues cannot be resolved on one side without affecting the other side. We have had experience of this problem, and the difficulties in finding a solution in Northern Ireland should tell the Minister something about the difficulties that would arise if he were to allow that situation to develop between Wales and England. 
 I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. As I said at the beginning, all my contributions have been intended to help him to persuade his colleagues that he is the best thing since sliced bread and that his solutions to planning problems are the right ones. The suggestions about England are a load of rubbish. Wales has the better answer if changes must be made. The Minister is pushing at an open door. I want to agree with him. I want him to do with his colleagues what I managed to do with the hon. Member for Mole Valley and persuade them of the wisdom of his proposals, so that they will throw up their hands in horror and admit that everything they have done until now has been a waste of time. They have got it completely wrong. If they were to back the Welsh solution, we would have a far better Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. Does he agree that if the Government are determined to use both systems, the acid test will be how the Welsh manage economic growth, sustainability and the environment with their simpler system? If they do better than the English, would not that be an absolute vindication of my hon. Friend's position?

David Wilshire: My hon. Friend is, as always, absolutely correct. In fact, the Minister might consider that an ideal outcome. The Welsh rugby team has suffered very badly at the hands of the English for too long. Perhaps they might exact revenge by saying that, although the English keep beating them at rugby, they have the better planning system. The Minister might find the idea commendable.

Paul Beresford: A similar little nation will probably have revenge on England at the world cup, to the benefit of its players and the rest of us.

Peter Pike: Order. We must ensure that we are dealing with the amendment.

David Wilshire: Yes, Mr. Pike. I have no wish now or in the future to discuss New Zealand rugby. The subject is too embarrassing for an Englishman.
 The Minister will have to try very hard to make a convincing case against all the arguments that have been put. The issue is serious. There is a huge conflict between two entirely different ways of dealing with the matter, and the Minister must come up with some very good arguments as to why such a totally different system should apply in one country.

Hywel Francis: I wish to make some general observations about the Wales spatial plan, and to invite my hon. Friend the Minister to respond to questions about the origins and purpose of the plan. Can he explain how the plan emerged as a result of democratic devolution? In a way, the question is a response to the observations that have been made by Opposition Members in the last few minutes. There is a democratic partnership between the Wales Office and the Welsh Assembly Executive.
 Would my hon. Friend the Minister also explain how widely supported the plan is inside and outside the Assembly, and across parties? By way of illustration, if the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy were in his place, I am sure that he would have made the point in relation to linguistic planning. Clause 55, which is about the survey, refers to 
''the principal physical, economic, social and environmental characteristics of the area of the authority.
 That was thoroughly discussed in the Assembly, and a consensual position was eventually arrived at whereby the word ''linguistic'' was considered to be superfluous. Again, that arose from thorough discussion in the Assembly. 
 How does the Wales spatial plan relate to the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the commitment to sustainable development, which has been discussed at length in earlier sittings? Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the plan provides a key framework for a more integrated approach for the whole of Wales, and brings together all the Executive's 
 initiatives and strategy in one overarching, guiding, long-term spatial strategy?

Don Touhig: May I say at the outset how very pleased I am to speak in the Committee, formally for the first time, under your chairmanship, Mr. Pike? You and your colleague, Mr. Amess, have guided the Committee through some interesting and important debates, and I know that every Member is grateful for that.
 May I also express my gratitude to members of the Committee for their understanding and tolerance of my absences? In the past few weeks, I have been on three different Bills, at different stages, so I appreciate and value the understanding and tolerance of hon. Members. 
 We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate, which even included the problems of rugby. I was rather worried that the hon. Member for Cotswold was about to suggest that the Welsh were not doing enough to increase their population of just 2.9 million. As a father of four, I have done my part, but I was not clear as to where the hon. Gentleman was taking us. 
 Amendment No. 406 would introduce a specific requirement for the Wales spatial plan to include the Secretary of State's policies, however expressed, on the development and use of land in the region. That is wholly inconsistent with the devolution settlement for Wales. It is a hard lesson for the Conservative party to learn, but they should recognise that, some time ago, this place established a Welsh Assembly with the Government of Wales Act. In so doing, it transferred to the Assembly any functions exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in relation to Wales. 
 In response to the hon. Member for Spelthorne, the Wales Office has no executive responsibilities whatsoever for the delivery of services in Wales. That is how the devolution settlement was constructed, and that is how it has operated for almost four years.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: In making the statement that the amendment is wholly inconsistent with the devolution of Wales, would the Minister also accept that the system for Wales is wholly inconsistent with the system that he proposes on behalf of the Government for the English regions?
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I intervened on the Minister before the break to ask whether, in extolling the virtues of consistency with the devolution settlement in part 6 of the Bill, to which the amendment relates, he would recognise the inconsistency of the Welsh system with the system imposed on England in the Bill?

Peter Pike: Order. Before I call Mr. Touhig, may I explain that if there is noise, it is because the engineers are trying to control the heating in the room?
 If it rises to an unacceptable level we shall take steps to stop it, but hon. Members have complained of excessive heat. I have given approval to work to adjust that, but if it becomes unacceptable we shall have to stop.

Don Touhig: It is my mission in life to explain to the Tories what the devolution settlement means. I do that in Committee after Committee. The settlement means that the Government in Westminster and the Labour-led Administration in Cardiff may have the same objectives, but we may follow different routes to reach those objectives. That is nothing new. Last year, the House dealt with Bills on education and health. The approach to education in the Education Act 2002 was totally different for Wales and England in the reform and change of the national curriculum. The National Health Service Reform and Health Care and Professions Act 2002 introduced patient forums for England, whereas in Wales the community health councils were reformed. That is not new. I do not understand why the Conservative party cannot take it on board. They may not have any seats in Wales, and if they carry on in the same way, they never will. I hope that the hon. Member for Cotswold can understand that it is perfectly proper to take different routes to the same objective.

Paul Beresford: We accept that different routes are possible. Clearly two different routes are set out in the Bill. However, the Minister from the Wales Office is telling us that what is happening at the National Assembly for Wales is better. The break between the United Kingdom Government and the Assembly benefits Wales. We question why, if that benefit is so great, it should not relate to England.

Don Touhig: I am not saying that the system is better. It is different, to account for circumstances in Wales. We have a devolved Administration in Wales. There are no devolved administrations in England. Wales has single-tier local authorities, but England does not. Our colleagues in the Assembly, who have led in developing policy in this respect, have done so because it accords with conditions in Wales.

Paul Beresford: We did have single-tier authorities, and still do in some major cities. We used to have them in London. We have the jackboot of the Minister and the Secretary of State and, in England, the Deputy Prime Minister, to the disadvantage of the local authorities in question.

Don Touhig: I am not sure about the hon. Gentleman's intemperate language about jackboots, but I know which party abolished the Greater London Council and sold its building. It was not the Labour party.
 Town and country planning is one of the matters in respect of which functions have been transferred to my colleagues in the National Assembly for Wales. Consequently, the Secretary of State has no town and country planning remit in Wales except when, as today, new primary legislation is being considered, and all hon. Members participate. That is reflected in the fact that the Bill consistently allocates functions to the Secretary of State, in relation to England, and to the Assembly, in relation to Wales. 
 Part 6 of the Bill, which we are debating, refers throughout to the Assembly. Parts 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 all apply to both England and Wales, and the effect of clause 83(3) is that for England the reference is to the Secretary of State, and for Wales it is to the Assembly. The amendment, contrary to that principle, would require the Welsh spatial plan to include, in addition to the Assembly's policies, those of the Secretary of State, who has no executive functions in this matter. That cannot be right.

Sydney Chapman: I think that the Minister is coming to the point that I made, about the need for co-ordination between the Secretary of State for Wales and the First Minister. There are two reasons for that. First, as I briefly tried to explain—perhaps I was too brief—although I understand what he has been saying, now that we have moved over to a system of devolution, the Secretary of State for Wales has overarching responsibilities and duties. Of course, although devolution has been handed to Wales, Wales is still part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There are important town and country planning functions about which, clearly, the Secretary of State should have a say. It is in the interest of the people of Wales that that should be seen to happen, by being set out in the Bill. That would lead to greater co-operation between the Secretary of State and the First Minister or the National Assembly for Wales. Had I been a Welshman I should have voted against—

Peter Pike: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made his point. That was a long intervention.

Don Touhig: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, made with his customary courtesy and good humour. However, under the Government of Wales Act 1998 the House transferred all responsibility for town and country planning that had been exercised by Ministers to the National Assembly in Cardiff. The hon. Gentleman made a point earlier about powers being handed to the First Minister in the same way as they are handed over to the Secretary of State in other parts of the Bill. The Assembly is a corporate body, so it is impossible to hand over responsibility to an individual Member of the Assembly.

Sydney Chapman: Why is part 6 necessary?

Don Touhig: As I tried to explain to the hon. Member for Cotswold a moment ago, part 6 is necessary because where the responsibility for town and country planning is devolved, my colleagues in the Assembly take a view on how they want to reform the planning system in Wales. It is different from some approaches in England, but many chunks of the Bill apply to both England and Wales, as the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet will know having been in more Committee sittings than I. However, part 6 allows a different approach to reforming the planning system in Wales, which is perfectly proper in the devolution settlement.

Huw Edwards: Can my hon. Friend confirm that there was extensive consultation when the proposals
 were first put out in Wales and that the Bill's provisions are a result of that consultation?

Don Touhig: Yes, I can confirm that there has been extensive consultation and that the proposals are supported by all the parties in the Welsh Assembly. That is an important point.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister for his courtesy in giving way in this debate. I am mindful of the time and how the knife will fall. We may not get to this point, but it is so important that the Minister should answer it. How will the new system in Wales deal with cross-border issues such as flooding, waste management and transport? It would be useful if the Minister made some comment on how such major concerns will be dealt with.

Peter Pike: It might well be useful, but it will be out of order, so Members should keep to the amendment. I am not in control of the timetable, and I want to see progress made.

Don Touhig: I accept your ruling, Mr. Pike, and I will perhaps have an opportunity to come back to the hon. Member for Cotswold.

Paul Beresford: I was going to ask about the same point but in relation to the amendment. The amendment would allow a discussion between the Secretary of State for Wales and the UK Secretary of State responsible for such matters, to sort them out. If that discussion does not take place, presumably the Deputy Prime Minister talks to a Welsh Assembly Minister or the First Minister.

Don Touhig: Strange as it may seem, that happens. Colleagues in Westminster and Cardiff speak to one another. That is the partnership arrangement that is making devolution a success in Wales and, when we get devolution in England, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt welcome that as well.
 The National Assembly for Wales has the function of formulating and implementing policies on the development use of land in Wales. The Assembly also has functions in other fields, such as economic development, transport and the environment, that have a direct impact on development. Spatial planning at a national level in relation to Wales is properly the province of the Assembly. 
 I was not sure what the hon. Member for Cotswold was saying. He seemed to say that he envied what we have in Wales—an Assembly and single-tier local government—so I do not doubt that, after we have passed the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill and returned with a Bill to establish assemblies in England, he will join us in the lobby, voting to establish regional assemblies in England. That is the natural consequence of his comments, and if that means reform of local government in which counties and districts are merged, as was done in Wales when his party was in government, he may have something positive to say on that, too. 
 The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet graciously paid tribute to the work done by the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty). He was not present when the hon. Gentleman made 
 those comments, but I thank him, and my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear about those remarks. 
 I was not clear about what the hon. Member for Mole Valley said. I understood his comments to be that he does not want the Secretary of State to have a role or sit on the shoulder of the Assembly. However, most of the Opposition amendments would create a position for the Secretary of State to intervene, which does not exist at the moment. That contradicts his comments. 
 The hon. Member for Spelthorne is no longer in his place, and I thought that his language was somewhat intemperate in talking about jackboots and dictatorship. In Wales, we know what it is like to live under a dictatorship. Nothing in the Bill reflects the damage that the Conservative party did to Wales during the years in which it was in government. The true position is that the Tories are having trouble coping with devolution. Parliament has agreed that devolution is the way in which things should be. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon spoke positively about the partnership between the Government and the Assembly, and I am delighted that my colleague, the Assembly Minister for the Environment, is in the Gallery.

Peter Pike: Order. We do not refer to the Gallery.

Don Touhig: Sorry, Mr. Pike; I got carried away by the positive partnership. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon pointed out the development of an integrated approach to planning reform and the change to the way in which planning matters are dealt with in Wales.
 I accept the hon. Member for Cotswold's point that it is a probing amendment. I hope that he accepts that he should not pursue it, and I invite him to withdraw it.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister for his maiden explanation in this Committee, which he has given in good temper while being generous in giving way.
 The Minister's explanation slightly misrepresented my view and that of Opposition Members. We approve of the Welsh system because it is simpler than the English system and has fewer layers. We would prefer not to see any regional element to the English system. We should like to see as much planning as possible handed down to the lowest possible level. Indeed, we should like to see more planning handed down to parish and town councils. Given that there is a Welsh Assembly for which the people of Wales have legitimately voted, however, the system proposed in the Bill, to which the amendment relates, is better than that in England, particularly in terms of local authorities. There are not huge layers of local development schemes, local development plans, local development plan documents and local development frameworks, all of which are features of the Bill in the English system. The Welsh system does not have those different tiers.

Don Touhig: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Does he recall making a point about the complication caused by too many structures? He said:
''Quite why we need all those documents and plans, when we could have just one plan to be adopted, revised, revoked and all the other things that the clause allows for, I cannot imagine.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 14 January 2003; c. 127.] 
However, he has tabled a new clause to introduce that approach into Wales. He is contradicting himself.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am in difficult territory because you may rule me out of order, Mr. Pike. The Minister knows that many new clauses and amendments are tabled for probing reasons and to make particular points. He is being mischievous because he knows perfectly well why I tabled the new clause.
 Having said that, we have had a useful debate on the amendment. The Government have not begun to explain why they need to introduce what is almost reverse devolution in England. They have not begun to make the case for why the system in Wales is different from that in England and why the Bill is so inconsistent. The Bill will leave Committee in an inconsistent state if the Government continue in that vein. Having probed the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Peter Pike: The Chair cannot judge the relative importance of the groups of amendments. If Members want to get on to clause 56 they could facilitate that by not debating the new clauses. It is not for me to say what they should do in the next clause stand part debate.
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 2—Wales Spatial Strategy—
'(1) There is to be a Wales Spatial Strategy (in this Part referred to as ''WSS''). 
 (2) The WSS must set out the Secretary of State's policies (however expressed) in relation to the development and use of land within Wales. 
 (3) With effect from the appointed day the WSS is so much of the planning guidance relating to Wales as the Secretary of State prescribes. 
 (4) The appointed day is the day appointed for the commencement of this section.'.
 New clause 23—Wales Planning Body— 
'(1) The Secretary of State may give a direction recognising a body to which subsection (2) applies as the Wales Planning Body (in this Part referred to as the ''WPB''). 
 (2) This subsection applies to a body (whether or not incorporated) which satisfies such criteria as are prescribed. 
 (3) The Secretary of State may give a direction withdrawing recognition of the body. 
 (4) Subsection (5) applies if the Secretary of State— 
 (a) does not give a direction under subsection (1) recognising a body, or 
 (b) gives direction under subsection (3) withdrawing recognition of a body and does not give a direction under subsection (1) recognising any other body. 
 (5) In such a case the Secretary of State may exercise such of the functions of the WPB as he thinks appropriate. 
 (6) A change in the membership of a body which is not incorporated does not (by itself) affect the validity of the recognition of the body.'.
 New clause 24—WPB: general functions— 
'(1) The WPB must keep under review the WSS. 
 (2) The WPB must keep under review the matters which may be expected to affect— 
 (a) development in Wales or any part of Wales; 
 (b) the planning of that development. 
 (3) The WPB must— 
 (a) monitor the implementation of the WSS throughout Wales; 
 (b) consider whether the implementation is achieving the purposes of the WSS. 
 (4) The WPB must for each year prepare a report on the implementation of the WSS in the region. 
 (5) The report— 
 (a) must be in such form and consider such information as is prescribed; 
 (b) must be submitted to the Secretary of State on such date as is prescribed. 
 (5) The WPB must give advice to any other body or person if it thinks that to do so will help to achieve implementation of the WSS.'.
 New clause 25—Assistance from certain local authorities (Wales)— 
'(1) Each WPB must consider whether in relation to Wales (or any part of it) it may be desirable for any local authority to assist in it carrying out any function it has. 
 (2) If the WPB considers that it is desirable for such an authority to assist it in carrying out a function it has it must attempt to make arrangements to permit the discharge of that function by the authority in relation to the area. 
 (3) The WPB may reimburse an authority which exercises functions by virtue of such arrangements for any expenditure incurred by the authority in doing so. 
 (4) Subsection (1) does not apply to a function of the WPB under section 5(6). 
 (5) Any arrangements to be made for the purposes of subsection (2) must be taken to be arrangements between local authorities for the purposes of section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 (c.70). 
 (6) Nothing in this section affects any power which the WPB has apart from this section.'.
 New clause 26—WSS Revision— 
'(1) The WPB must prepare a draft revision of the WSS— 
 (a) when it appears to it necessary or expedient to do so; 
 (b) at such time as is prescribed; 
 (c) if it is directed to do so under section 9(1). 
 (2) But the WPB must give notice to the Secretary of State of its intention to prepare a draft revision under subsection (1)(a). 
 (3) In preparing a draft revision the WPB must have regard to— 
 (a) national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State; 
 (b) the WSS for each adjoining region; 
 (c) the spatial development strategy if any part of its region adjoins Greater London; 
 (d) The Wales Spatial Plan if any part of its region adjoins Wales; 
 (e) the resources likely to be available for implementation of the WSS; 
 (f) such other matters as are prescribed. 
 (4) In preparing a draft revision the WPB must also— 
 (a) carry out an appraisal of the sustainability of the proposals in the draft, and 
 (b) prepare a report of the findings of the appraisal. 
 (5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to— 
 (a) the subject matter of a draft revision prepared in pursuance of subsection (1)(b); 
 (b) any further documents which must be prepared by the WPB in connection with the preparation of a draft revision; 
 (c) the form and content of any draft, report or other document prepared under this section. 
 (6) When the WPB has prepared a draft revision, the report to be prepared under subsection (4)(b) and any other document to be prepared in pursuance of subsection (5)(b) it must— 
 (a) publish the draft revision; report and other document, 
 (b) submit them to the Secretary of State. 
 (7) But the WPB may withdraw a draft revision at any time before it submits the draft to the Secretary of State under subsection (6)(b).'.
 New clause 27—WSS: further procedure— 
'(1) If no examination in public is held the Secretary of State must consider any representations made on the draft revision of the WSS under section 6(2). 
 (2) If an examination in public is held the Secretary of State must consider— 
 (a) the report of the person appointed to hold the examination; 
 (b) any representations which are not considered by the person appointed to hold the examination. 
 (3) If after proceeding under subsection (1) or (2) the Secretary of State proposes to make any changes to the draft he must publish— 
 (a) the changes he proposes to make, 
 (b) his reasons for doing so. 
 (4) Any person may make representations on the proposed changes. 
 (5) The Secretary of State must consider any such representations. 
 (6) The Secretary of State must then publish the revision of the WSS incorporating such changes as he thinks fit. 
 (7) But the Secretary of State may withdraw a draft revision of a WSS at any time before he publishes the revision of the WSS under subsection (6).'.
 New clause 28—WSS: Secretary of State's Functions— 
'(1) This section applies when the Secretary of State receives a draft revision of the WSS. 
 (2) Any person may make representations on the draft. 
 (3) The Secretary of State may arrange for an examination in public to be held into the draft. 
 (4) In deciding whether an examination in public is held the Secretary of State must have regard to— 
 (a) the extent of the revisions proposed by the draft; 
 (b) the extent to which there was any consultation on the draft before it was published; 
 (c) the level of interest shown in the draft; 
 (d) such other matters as he thinks appropriate.'.
 New clause 29—WSS: examination in public— 
'(1) This section applies if the Secretary of State decides that an examination in public is to be held of a draft revision of the WSS. 
 (2) The examination must be held before a person appointed by the Secretary of State. 
 (3) No person has a right to be heard at an examination in public. 
 (4) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Lord Chancellor, make regulations with respect to the procedure to be followed at an examination in public. 
 (5) The person appointed under subsection (2) must make a report of the examination to the Secretary of State. 
 (6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provisions as to the procedure to be followed in connection with the recommendations of the person appointed under subsection (2). 
 (7) An examination in public— 
 (a) is a statutory inquiry for the purposes of section 1(1)(c) of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 (c.53) (report on administrative procedures); 
 (b) is not a statutory inquiry for any other purposes of that Act.'.
 New clause 30—Secretary of State: additional powers (Wales)— 
'(1) If the Secretary of State thinks it is necessary or expedient to do so he may direct an WPB to prepare a draft revision of the WSS. 
 (2) Such a direction may require the WPB to prepare the draft revision— 
 (a) in relation to such aspects of the WSS as are specified; 
 (b) in accordance with such timetable as is specified. 
 (3) The Secretary of State may prepare a draft revision of the WSS if the WPB fails to comply with— 
 (a) a direction under subsection (1), 
 (b) section 5(1)(b), or 
 (c) regulations under section 5(5) or 10. 
 (4) If the Secretary of State prepares a draft revision under subsection (3)— 
 (a) section 6 applies as it does if the Secretary of State receives a draft revision from the WPB, and 
 (b) sections 7 and 8(1) to (7) apply. 
 (5) If the Secretary of State thinks it necessary or expedient to do so he may at any time revoke— 
 (a) a WSS; 
 (b) such parts of a WSS as he thinks appropriate. 
 (6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the procedure to be followed for the purposes of subsection (3). 
 (7) Subsection (8) applies if— 
 (a) any step has been taken in connection with the preparation of any part of regional planning guidance.'.
 New clause 31—Regulations (Wales)— 
'(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision in connection with the exercise by any person of functions under this Part. 
 (2) The regulations may in particular make provision as to— 
 (a) the procedure to be followed by the WPB in carrying out the draft revision and appraisal under section 5; 
 (b) requirements about the giving of notice and publicity; 
 (c) the nature and extent of consultation with and participation by the public in anything done under this Part; 
 (d) the making of representations about any matter to be included in a WSS; 
 (e) consideration of any such representations; 
 (f) the remuneration and allowances payable to a person appointed to carry out an examination in public under section 7; 
 (g) the time at which anything must be done for the purposes of this Part; 
 (h) the manner of publication of any draft, report or other document published under this Part; 
 (i) monitoring the exercise by WPBs of their functions under this Part.'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: To be clear, you are calling a stand part debate together with the new clauses, Mr. Pike.

Peter Pike: That is absolutely correct.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Would it therefore be perfectly in order to raise any matter in relation to clause 54 with the new clauses?

Peter Pike: That is in order. To be absolutely clear, if the Committee did not wish to take the clause stand part debate with the stand part debate on clause 55, we would move on to the next clause.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: That is very helpful, Mr. Pike. Under those circumstances, if it is in order with you, as I go through this large group of new clauses I intend to class it as a clause stand part debate, so there could be a bit of latitude on each.

Peter Pike: It is a clause stand part debate.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: This large group of amendments leads with new clause 22, which I wish to move.

Peter Pike: Order. You cannot move it. You are debating clause 54. In doing so, you may debate any of those new clauses, but you cannot move them. I am sorry to keep interrupting.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful, Mr. Pike, for that procedural guidance. One has to be guided the first time and, hopefully, the second time it will be quite clear.
 Turning to the clause stand part debate, I shall address, if I may, the new clauses, starting with new clause 22. We tabled the new clause on the grounds of consistency with the procedure laid down for the English regions. The system that has been introduced for England amounts to a reverse devolution, whereas, as the Minister said, the Welsh settlement has been properly voted on by the Welsh people, albeit by a very narrow margin. Some in Wales would say that that vote did not properly reflect the general will of the people of Wales, but that is a different argument for a different day. On the whole, we must live with that system—the people have spoken. We must deal with different planning systems for Wales and for England and must see how the Welsh system will work and if and how it can be improved. That is the purpose of the new clauses. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne introduced the problem of what would happen if reserve powers—for example, those in new clause 22—were not reserved to the Secretary of State for Wales. How would a Secretary of State for England dictate guidelines and strategies to adjoining regions in England, on matters such as waste, transport or minerals? That could give rise to conflict. How could those strategies dictated by the Secretary of State for England and the Deputy Prime Minister be consistent within the Welsh policy? That is one of our reasons for tabling new clause 22. 
 New clause 23 is a more comprehensive proposal, which would, again, reserve the power to the Secretary of State to give a direction recognising a body to which subsection (2) applies as the Welsh planning body. Does the Minister anticipate the Welsh Assembly setting up a separate planning body? If he rejects the new clause, are administrative matters dealing with the whole of planning for Wales to be left entirely to the Welsh Assembly? It would be useful to have that on the record, because we do not know with whom exactly the responsibility will lie if there are problems with planning in Wales. We must be absolutely clear on that point. 
 For example, subsection (3) of the new clause would give the Secretary of State the power to withdraw recognition of that body. That is the nuclear option power that we discussed earlier. If the Welsh Assembly got its planning policy very wrong—one cannot rule that out—and for some reason it was totally inconsistent with that of the rest of the United Kingdom, how would the Secretary of State for Wales deal with that if he did not have that power reserved to him? If he reserves no control over the National Assembly for Wales in relation to planning, it will be difficult to deal with any problems.

Matthew Green: Who will judge whether planning is wrong? If the National Assembly for Wales is directly elected by the people of Wales and it makes a wrong decision, that is a matter for the Welsh electorate, not for this place.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Reversing the argument, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is how I see it working. The Welsh Assembly, through its elections, will have to be responsible for its own decisions. Part of the purpose of tabling the new clauses is to tease that out from the Minister. I want that to be on the record. If there are to be no reserve powers for the Secretary of State that is entirely a matter for the Government, but, through probing and pressing, we have teased out the Government's intentions and we need to put those on the record.

Paul Beresford: A corresponding example is London. Not so long ago, we had independent local authorities without the Greater London Assembly and without the Mayor. We now have the Mayor, bless him—some of us do—and the people of London voted for him. If he makes a mistake and steps out of line, the Secretary of State can step in and pull him up short. Why can we not have consistency throughout the country?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend makes the point cogently and more cogently than I was making it. It is very odd that the Government are reserving the nuclear powers of recognition and revocation of recognition of the RPB in England but not in Wales. The Government cannot have it both ways. If they believe in devolution for Wales, why do they not believe in devolution for England? Why have the nuclear powers been reserved for the Secretary of State? It is obvious that the Government do not trust the regional assemblies. We do not want regional assemblies for England, but if the Government are
 going to give us those assemblies, why have they reserved the nuclear powers for the Secretary of State? Why not let the regions get on and deal with the matter, particularly as they are elected? If we are ever unfortunate enough to get to that stage, they will have democratic legitimacy. Why reserve the nuclear powers?

Don Touhig: I will repeat what I said, if that will help the hon. Gentleman. Town and country planning is completely devolved. It was devolved under the Government of Wales Act 1998. There are no reserve powers for the Secretary of State concerning town and country planning. That was the policy that we introduced and the House agreed to the legislation.
 I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is saying to his colleagues in Cardiff, but he is asking us to reverse the devolution settlement and bring back from Cardiff powers that the House has already granted under that settlement. Is that now official Tory policy? Someone had better tell the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in Cardiff bay.

Peter Pike: There is a lot of scope in the new clauses so let us not drift on to a matter that is being debated on the Floor of the House rather than in this Committee. A passing reference is fine, but we should not become too involved in a Bill that is being debated on the Floor of the House.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I could not agree more, Mr. Pike. It is unfortunate that the annunciator shows that the Bill that is being discussed on the Floor of the House is tangentially related to what we are discussing.

Paul Beresford: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister is failing to understand—perhaps deliberately, because he is not unintelligent—that we are discussing the part of the Bill that covers Wales and that it includes some simplicity that Conservative Members would like to be applied to England? The structures are not as relevant as the simplicity.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is entirely right, which is the point that I have been trying, but perhaps failing, to make.
 There is another aspect. The Minister implied that the settlement under the Government of Wales Act 1998 must be maintained for evermore. Surely there is a power for the United Kingdom Parliament in subsequent Acts to change it, which is legitimate and democratic.

Don Touhig: There is a power for the House to do so, but we have no such proposals. Is the hon. Gentleman telling the Committee that the official Opposition's policy is to reclaim the powers given to the Welsh Assembly under the Government of Wales Act 1998? People in Wales are entitled to know if the Tory party wants to reverse devolution.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister is being mischievous again.

Don Touhig: How?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister pretends innocence. He knows perfectly well what he is tempting me to do and I will resist that temptation. I am simply saying that the devolution settlement for
 Wales is not necessarily cast in stone. If the Minister is going to maintain the position of the Government of Wales Act 1998 and not have any reserve powers for Wales, he will have to tell the Committee how consistent policy will be arrived at in Wales compared with England, especially for the bordering regions. We have not come to that point yet—you are not going to allow us to have that debate, Mr. Pike—but we will have to tease out of the Government how it will work.
 As to new clause 24, it would be reasonable for the democratically elected Government of the United Kingdom to state in the Bill that there should be a Welsh planning body in the Welsh Assembly. The people of Wales would then know which body was responsible for making planning policy in the Principality, its composition, and to which body they should make representations. 
 The Minister was being disingenuous in tempting me to say that the Secretary of State for Wales should have powers, and thus there should not be a Welsh planning body, but there is no reason why the devolution settlement should not be entirely consistent with a Welsh planning body.

Sydney Chapman: Whether we agree or not, any member of the Committee is entitled to table an amendment for a Welsh planning body. If that is not so, why does clause 54(1) state:
''There must be a spatial plan for Wales''?
 If devolution in town and country or spatial planning matters has been given to that great Principality, why did the Government table subsection (6)?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend makes a sound point. All that is needed is one sentence in subsection (6) stating that Welsh planning will be dealt with as outlined in the Government of Wales Act 1998—that it is a devolved matter. We are entitled to table new clauses 23 and 24, which would set up a Welsh planning body, and to debate the matter. If it is outwith the scope of the Bill or the powers of the Committee, you would rapidly have ruled me out of order, Mr. Pike. The fact that you are nodding assent suggests that we are fully entitled to discuss whether there should be a Welsh planning body, which makes eminent good sense.
 The Government are dictating that there should be a regional planning body for the eight regions of England, so why on earth should not we dictate that the Welsh Assembly should have a Welsh planning body? We would be entitled to know the composition of that body, as it would be in the public domain, and people in Wales would have the right to lobby its members to ensure that the Welsh spatial strategy contained what they wanted it to contain. It would be helpful, and interesting, if the Minister would tell us what he thinks about having a Welsh planning body. 
 Having established that we can have a Welsh planning body, new clause 25(1) states: 
''Each WPB must consider whether in relation to Wales (or any part of it) it may be desirable for any local authority to assist in it carrying out any function it has.''
 We like the system of having one local development scheme, whether or not we debate it. Nevertheless, it is within the scope of the new clause to decide the balance of power. Even if we do not have a Welsh planning body, we know from part 6 that there will be a Welsh spatial strategy, and it is completely legitimate to ask about the balance of power. Clause 54(7) states: 
''The Assembly must not delegate its function under subsection (6)'',
 under which the 
''Plan and any revision of it must be approved by the Assembly.''
 If the Government genuinely believe in devolving matters to the Assembly, why not let it have the powers that it wants to devolve planning policy down to individual local authorities? It would be interesting to hear how the Minister envisages the balance of power under the proposed policy. What role will Welsh local authorities have in drawing up the spatial strategy? 
 Opposition Members want local authorities in Wales and, indeed, in England to have a greater role than that envisaged by the Government in drawing up the spatial strategy. I suspect, however, that there will be an inconsistency between the Government's proposals for England and Wales even in this regard. It would be nice to hear that the Minister envisaged some real devolution down to individual local authorities. I do not know how many there are in Wales, although I tried to get that information before I came to the Committee. Perhaps the Minister could assist us by telling us. However, one could envisage a system under which those authorities combined to draw up the spatial strategy, with the Assembly simply holding the ring, smoothing over problems and dealing with conflicts between different authorities. It would be interesting to know where the Minister stands in relation to that extreme form of devolution and the much more centralised form, which would involve the Welsh Assembly drawing up the spatial strategy with relatively little or no local authority involvement. 
 New clause 25(2) states that if the Welsh planning body 
''considers that it is desirable for such an authority to assist it in carrying out a function it has it must attempt to make arrangements to permit the discharge of that function by the authority in relation to the area.''
 One would of course expect the Assembly to do that, and that out-of-pocket expenditure would be reimbursed. New clause 25 would provide for that, and it is entirely reasonable. 
 I turn now to new clause 26. Clause 38(1)(c) provides that the Bill's provisions on sustainability apply to part 6 and, therefore, to Wales. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us how that will work in practice. The new clause says that the Welsh planning body must consider sustainability. It is an attempt to tease out how the Minister expects the Assembly to implement individual mechanisms and to apply the powers that we are giving it in clause 38. 
 That reinforces the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet. By imposing a duty of sustainability on the Assembly, we can of course lay down what it must do, just as we can in any other Bill. 
 In certain aspects, it is right and proper that we do that. Clause 38 provides that it must consider sustainability, but I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us how that will be achieved. 
 To return to clause 54(6) and (7), what happens if the National Assembly for Wales does not revise the plan? Under the Bill, the Assembly need only ''consider'' whether to carry out revisions. Having done so, however, it need not carry them out. What if it simply allows ad hoc planning in Wales, without proper revisions? There is a very stratified structure for the English regions, and the Secretary of State can use his enormous powers to force regions and local authorities to revise their plans. If they do not, he will do it for them. Would it be satisfactory if the Welsh Assembly did not carry out revisions? Would the Minister be happy with that? 
 New clause 27 relates to examination in public. Once again, the Bill provides no direction that, in drawing up a Welsh spatial strategy, an examination in public must take place. Does the Minister expect the National Assembly for Wales to conduct such an examination? If it were unwise enough to draw up a spatial strategy behind closed doors, I submit that it would lose its legitimacy for the people of Wales. As I said in the English context, the people will not feel ownership of the Welsh spatial strategy. New clause 27 interestingly probes the Minister in that respect. 
 New clause 28 relates to conditions that the Secretary of State must consider in deciding to hold an examination in public, particularly whether a revision should be examined. The Welsh Assembly may well not hold a revision, because it does not want to go through the whole gamut of yet another examination in public. However, a plan could become so out of date that a revision was necessary and the new clause probes the position that applies in those circumstances. 
 New clause 29 deals with how an examination in public should be held, after a decision to proceed has been taken. Irrespective of whether it is reasonable for the Secretary of State to have the powers in England, he does have them. He does not have them in the Welsh context, so what happens if the Welsh Assembly decides to go ahead with a public examination? Holding an examination in public is one thing, but not allowing the public to participate would be something else. In the English context, the Secretary of State can lay down regulations to ensure not only that the examination is held in public, but that those legitimately entitled to make representations will be able to do so. The Minister may say that it is entirely up to the Welsh Assembly because these are devolved matters. That is fine. We are perfectly happy about that, but we want it on the record so that the Welsh Assembly can be judged according to its performance. 
 New clause 30(1) states: 
''If the Secretary of State thinks it is necessary or expedient to do so he may direct a WPB to prepare a draft revision of the WSS.''
 The Bill already provides for this power in respect of England. The new clauses simply lift the wording from the English provisions and apply them to Wales. They 
 do nothing original or unusual. We want to probe why the same provisions do not apply to the Welsh part of the Bill. Why can the Secretary of State require a draft revision in England, but not in Wales? 
 Finally, new clause 31 deals with regulations in Wales. It may seem unnecessary, but it relates to what is happening in England. Why cannot the Government trust the English regions to carry out these functions themselves, without the need for the Secretary of State to exercise his powers? I want the Minister's views on the Welsh Assembly's powers over these matters put on the record. It will be interesting to compare what he says with the views of the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. We can have some fun comparing the different stories on Report. I look forward to hearing what the Minister now has to say.

Matthew Green: I intend to do something that I have not done yet in Committee, which is to congratulate the Minister. Part 6 of the Bill, and particularly clause 54, is an especially coherent piece of legislation. He has done Wales a service by producing something that clearly has no opposition—and no nit-picking of individual points, as we can see from the lack of amendments. I assume that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy is not here because he so pleased with it—although his absence sometimes causes my party problems when I have been unable to attend, as the Committee will be aware.
 I am particularly pleased to see that the Secretary of State does not keep many reserve powers. Indeed, the Assembly will decide who to consult and approve plan and revisions. The Assembly keeps control. I wish that the English provisions would give such powers to the English regional assemblies when they are formed. However, my constituency is on the Welsh borders, and in that respect my position is unique; I am the only English Member in the Committee who represents a constituency on the Welsh borders. We have known for a long time that we lose business over the border—[Interruption.] The constituency of the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) does not share a boundary with Wales; nor does his local authority.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Gloucester does.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman points out that his county shares a border with Wales, although his constituency is some way from the border.
 We regularly lose business across the border, because the Welsh Development Agency and now the Welsh Assembly are able to get round state aid rules—I do not know how it is done, but we seem not to be able to manage that in England. As a result businesses are able to get considerable financial assistance if they relocate a few miles over the border. The planning system in Wales is so much easier to understand and so much better for businesses to work with, that we may see businesses relocating across the border.

Paul Beresford: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on that statement, and on where he is driving; I made the same point just before he arrived. Would he not agree that the difference is not necessarily where the ultimate responsibility lies, so
 much as the fact that the whole structure is infinitely simpler?

Matthew Green: I agree. That is why I started by congratulating the Minister on producing such a coherent piece of legislation. I wish that I could be so enthusiastic about the English provisions.

Peter Pike: Order. I do not want to influence the hon. Member for Ludlow too much, but he should keep to clause stand part, and the wide range of new clauses. We are not discussing the whole of part 6.

Matthew Green: Thank you, Mr. Pike. I shall finish what I was saying about the fact that businesses will be encouraged to cross the border to Wales because the spatial plan in Wales will be much more accountable. Businesses will know where to go for the final analysis, whereas in England it is always possible that a plan could be called in by the Secretary of State. In England, it is up to the Secretary of State to decide whether plans are acceptable, but once they arrive with the Assembly, they stop there.
 I shall not support the Conservative amendments. I am happy to see the clause stand part as it is. I wish that we had similar provision in the English parts of the Bill.

Sydney Chapman: I shall be as quick as possible. I want to return to the central point of the clause.
 The clause imposes the Wales spatial plan on the people of Wales and it states that a spatial plan must do certain things. That is beyond doubt. I have a simple question: what right has the United Kingdom Parliament, if it agrees with the proposed legislation, to impose such matters relating to town and country planning on the people of Wales? In trying to demolish amendment No. 406, the Minister said unambiguously that we should get into the real world. He is scoffing at us. I have come to terms with the fact that devolution has been given to Wales, and I am sure that the 49.5 per cent. of the Welsh people who did not vote for it have come to terms with it too. However, we must make devolution work. 
 I want the Minister to clarify one simple point. If town and country planning matters, which include spatial plans, have been devolved to Wales, those have surely been devolved to the Welsh Assembly. If those matters have been devolved, part 6 ought to have just one clause saying that any reference to Wales in the principal Act—the Town and Country Planning Act 1990—is revoked, consequent on the Government of Wales Act 1998. I do not, however, think that that is the case. If the Secretary of State for Wales represents the Government in the Principality, he must have some overarching powers. I do not know whether the powers in the Bill are the same as those held by the Secretary of State in relation to London. The Mayor of London may have, or may seek, influence on town and country planning matters, with the possible exception of transport, which is separate in a sense, but he has no powers. Does the Secretary of State for Wales have any powers in relation to town and country planning? 
 The new clauses were tabled to show the yawning gap and the difference between what the Government want to happen in the principality and what they want to happen in the English regions. The clause is littered with plans—nine plans, I think—and one other reference to planning. That is preferable to the plethora—the labyrinth—of words such as ''documents'', ''schemes'' and ''strategies'' in the proposed legislation referring to the English. We tabled the new clauses to make a point. 
 The Minister knows more about Welsh nationalism than I could ever learn. I accept that. I would, however, genuinely like to know what powers, if any, the Secretary of State for Wales has in relation to town and country planning. If he has none, I think that part 6 of the Bill is totally mad.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I believe that the knife comes down on this sitting at 5 pm and there will probably be one or more Divisions in the House. In order that we can plan the rest of our time, will you advise the Committee on what the procedure will be if there is a Division in the House at 5 pm?

Peter Pike: The position is quite clear. If a Division in the House is called before I have started to put the motion, that Division takes precedence, so we will adjourn and I will put the questions when we return. If I have started the question, I will put the technical motions and we will have to come back anyway.
 I have to put Questions that are set down at 5 pm. I have then to adjourn for a Division in the House. I cannot put any other Questions and I cannot decide whether or not the Committee will go on. Does that clarify the position?

Don Touhig: We have had an interesting debate. The Opposition have tabled a series of new clauses that would require the preparation of the Wales spatial strategy to mirror the regional spatial strategy proposals for England. The proposition appears to be that the system of regional spatial strategies in England should also apply in Wales. It also implies that the Secretary of State, rather than the National Assembly, should be responsible for spatial planning matters.
 I am puzzled because Opposition Members appear to intend that the provision relating to the preparation of the Wales spatial plan—clause 54—should be retained in addition to the provisions establishing the Wales spatial strategy. New clause 26(3)(d) would specifically require the Wales planning body to have regard to the Wales spatial plan when revising the Wales spatial strategy. If we took the approach proposed by the Opposition, there would be two competing spatial plans in Wales: one prepared by the Assembly and the other by the Secretary of State. At the very least, that would be a recipe for wasteful duplication, confusion and potential disagreement. 
 I shall not repeat the points made in previous discussions about the role and importance of spatial strategies. Nor will I be drawn into a discussion about 
 whether one system is better than the other—the systems proposed for England and Wales are different. Again, that is the result of the devolution settlement. It reflects the fact that circumstances, including local government structures, are different. In Wales, we also have the National Assembly. The Bill provides for two systems, each fit for its purpose and right for its respective jurisdiction. 
 We have taken the view that in Wales a national spatial plan is needed: the Wales spatial plan for which this part of the Bill provides. The National Assembly will prepare the spatial plan. Opposition Members will recall my explaining earlier that the powers relating to town and country planning have been transferred to the Assembly—that is, the powers that were on the statute book when the Government of Wales Act 1998 was introduced.

Paul Beresford: This is a slight diversion, but it is related to what we are discussing. During the passage of the Bill that became the Environment Act 1995, I was in the dubious position of having to try to pronounce the Welsh name of the Environment Agency for Wales. It was as impossible as a Welshman trying to pronounce ''Aoteoroa''—the Maori name for New Zealand—but it was in the Bill. Why is there no Welsh equivalent of the National Assembly for Wales in this Bill?

Don Touhig: In all legislation that we introduce, we refer to it simply as the National Assembly for Wales; we have not printed the Bill in a bilingual form. I believe that that is the result of advice from parliamentary counsel, but I may be corrected.
 The Secretary of State has no remit over town and country planning and the planning framework in Wales. This Parliament has a remit only over the construction of new legislation, and at present no power has been transferred to the Assembly to create a Wales spatial plan; we are doing that in this part of the Bill. 
 The Assembly has already started work on the plan on a non-statutory basis. The concept was proposed by the Assembly's first corporate plan ''Better Wales'', and has been retained in its successor ''Plan for Wales''. There has been widespread support for the preparation of the plan, both in public consultation and throughout Wales, including at local government level. 
 As I said, the Wales spatial plan will be fit for its purpose. It will set out the broad pattern of development and land use most likely to secure the Assembly's policy objectives. The proposals set out in clause 54 place a statutory duty on the Assembly to prepare, approve and publish the Wales spatial plan. The Assembly will prepare it in partnership with key stakeholders in local government, business, industry and the voluntary and environmental sectors. There is no need to establish a Wales planning body. A body already exists to set planning policy in Wales—the National Assembly for Wales. Indeed, the Assembly is an exemplar when it comes to partnership working.

Matthew Green: I have just one concern about the Assembly producing the plan. This point may be absent from the Bill, but I hope that the Minister can
 reassure me. In the English parts, there is provision for the regional planning bodies to consult adjoining regions where necessary. Clearly, there may well be issues in this respect. For instance, the only north-south Wales railway line runs through my constituency—the line runs along the English side of the border, not the Welsh side. On many other issues, a spatial strategy would involve consulting authorities on the English side. What steps will be taken to ensure that the Welsh Assembly does that?

Don Touhig: Where appropriate, steps will be taken to take account of cross-border planning matters. That happens already, and will continue to happen as a result of this Bill.

Huw Edwards: Perhaps my hon. Friend will direct the hon. Member for Ludlow to clause 56(5)(c), which refers to
''the RSS for any region which adjoins the area of the authority''.

Don Touhig: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that; he is welcome to join our team any time.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Member for Monmouth has not read the Bill properly. Clause 56(5) relates to local plans, not to the Wales spatial strategy. However, it would be helpful to have on record the mechanism that the Minister expects to be put in place to deal with the sorts of issues that the hon. Member for Ludlow has raised and the sorts of issues that I have raised—waste management, flooding, transport and so on. How will cross-border issues be dealt with?

Don Touhig: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I thought that I had explained that the Bill contains provisions that will allow the widest possible consultation on cross-border issues that arise during the development of the Welsh spatial plan.
 There is no need to follow the line that the hon. Gentleman advocated earlier. In Wales, we have a unitary system of local government. It works quite in harmony with the Welsh Assembly. The Assembly will work closely with local government and other interested parties to prepare the spatial plan. It will look to local government to put the plan into effect and to ensure that it is properly consulted on, discussed and approved. 
 The Assembly, in its plenary sessions or through its Committee structures, will undertake the role of scrutiny. In many respects, that will be similar to the processes that Parliament undertakes. If they wish me to, I will happily write to hon. Members to set out the Assembly's procedures for public consultation on any steps that it plans to take.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: To ensure consistency between England and Wales, will the Welsh Grand Committee of this House have a role in examining the planning system in Wales?

Don Touhig: There is no reason why, in the annual Welsh day debate, any hon. Member could not raise any matter. However, I will undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members to explain the way in which the Assembly carries out public consultations on major steps that it is about to take.
 Public participation is encouraged and forms part of the work of the Welsh Assembly.
 The proposed new clauses are neither necessary nor appropriate. They are ill-thought-out and hasty. They attempt to introduce to the planning system in Wales provisions that are designed specifically for England. We can see how hastily the proposals were put together if we consider subsections (3)(c) and (d) of new clause 26. They would require the Wales planning board, which the party opposite wants us to set up, to consider, when preparing the Wales spatial strategy, the spatial development strategy for London—but only if Wales and Greater London adjoin each other. I have spent some time going through the map of the United Kingdom, and I cannot find any point at which the boundary of Wales attaches to the boundary of London.

Sydney Chapman: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: it is nonsense in that respect—although these provisions have been copied. However, in parts of London, many people think that Wales does adjoin London—think of the Welsh rugger club.

Don Touhig: I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
 Reference was made earlier to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, who is not here. I know that he would want a separate and independent Wales, but I do not think that, even in his wildest dreams, he would have territorial ambitions to take the borders of Wales up to the borders of Greater London. A Welshman looking across from Penarth head into the Bristol channel could see those two wonderful islands, Flatholme and Steepholme. Flatholme is in Wales and Steepholme is in England. That Welshman may have territorial ambitions to bring both islands under Welsh ownership, but no Welshman would have the same ambition towards the Isle of Dogs, thereby ensuring a territorial link between Wales and the Greater London area.

Matthew Green: I warn the Minister against making assumptions about where Plaid Cymru might want the Welsh border to be. After all, one of their heroes is Owain Glyndwr, who made a tripartite pact with the two Percys to split England and Wales into three parts. If the Percys had been successful in the battle of Shrewsbury, large parts of the midlands would have been added to Wales. The Minister assumes that Plaid Cymru want the border to remain as it is, but history shows us that the Welsh have territorial ambitions.

Peter Pike: Order. Let us remember that the white rose was beaten by the red rose, the emblem of the house of Lancaster.

Don Touhig: I remind the Committee that the Tudors united all of them. I will not follow the temptation offered by the hon. Member for Ludlow.
 New clause 26(3)(d) is even more intriguing. When preparing a revised Wales spatial plan, the Wales planning body—which the Opposition want us to create—should have regard to that plan if any part of Wales ''adjoins Wales''. That is too testing for 4.55 in 
 the afternoon. It demonstrates how ill-thought-out the Opposition's amendment really is.

Sydney Chapman: Like the mis-spelling of ''compulsory'' or ''satisfied'', it is a typographical error.

Peter Pike: Order. Let us return to the main clause stand part debate.

Don Touhig: Clause 54 introduces a statutory framework for the National Assembly to prepare the Wales spatial plan. It provides a statutory basis for the innovative work already undertaken by the Assembly in producing the first Wales spatial plan. The plan will set out the broad pattern of development and land use most likely to secure the Assembly's stated policy objectives.
 The plan will place a statutory duty on the Assembly to prepare, approve and publish a spatial plan for Wales. There will be no Welsh equivalent to the regional planning bodies in England. The Assembly will fulfil that function. It will be required to carry out full and widespread consultation on the plan—it has a good record on public consultation. Consultation will take place across a range of organisations in the public and private as well as the voluntary and environmental sectors. 
 The clause prevents the Assembly from delegating the function of approving the plan. The Assembly will be required to keep the plan under review and revise it when necessary. Wales is not a large country and does not have the huge population to which the hon. Member for Cotswold referred earlier in our debate. However, the proposal is a coherent strategy for dealing with planning throughout Wales. It is the right approach to adopt to tackle our difficulties and reform our planning system. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55 - Survey

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I did not have a chance to reply to the Minister earlier. It is all very well for him to mock our amendments, but he has a team of civil servants and lawyers behind him. We in the Opposition have to do the work ourselves with very little help. I am not complaining about that, but we are more likely to make occasional mistakes. If we make mistakes in amendments, surely the Minister should be able to get the spelling right throughout the Bill.

Don Touhig: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. I would not dream of making reference to Short money. At the end of the day, one does not have to have a university degree or be a great scientist to realise that the borders of Wales do not touch Greater London.

Peter Pike: Order. For the record, the Chair puts the question at the start of a clause stand part debate. If there is no debate, there is no right of reply.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I merely make the point that a GCSE student or a person who had been educated to O-level standard knows how to spell ''compulsory ''and ''satisfactory''. It is surprising that the Minister has not managed to get those spellings right in the Bill.

Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend must recognise that the Minister has been boxing shadows. We made it clear that we tabled the probing amendments merely to make a point.
 It being Five o'clock The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [29 November 2002] and the Order of the Committee [9 January 2003], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair. 
 Question put, That clauses 55 to 72 stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clauses 55 to 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Suspended for Divisions in the House. 
 On resuming— 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Dan Norris.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Six o'clock till Tuesday 28 January at five minutes to Nine o'clock.